You go girl, those blue state anti-American liberals ain’t got nothing on you:
…but you don’t get to be governor without being smart. Do you think you’re intellectual?
Sarah: Yehhh-sss. And you have to be up on not only current events, but you have to understand the foundation of the issues that you’re working on…You can’t just go on what is presented you.
From a People magazine interview.
This is the same Sarah Palin who had a little trouble telling Katie Couric which, or any, newspapers she reads:
13 Comments
I don’t read any newspapers either and I consider myself fairly intellectual. In fact I’d argue that reading newspapers could directly risk your intellectual capacities.
How do you engage? Books, blogs? I think though that Palin is not saying she doesn’t need to read newsapers to be informed rather she knows she should be reading newspapers she just can’t remember which ones she does read or thinks she should be saying she reads. In any event, I detest her.
Maybe People should have asked her if she could define what “intellectual” means. Or perhaps spell it.
She clearly has little idea of what an intellectual is or does; she seems to think it means being well-briefed
This is typical snobbery. A person’s intelligence has nothing at all to do with whether they can spell or what newspaper they read. Whilst I’m not a fan of conservative politics in general I acknowledge the difficulty that women often face to be elected to ‘high office’. In fact Ms Palin is one of only 8 female governors; and 1 of 3 female Republican governors.
I think your statement that she can’t remember which newspapers ’she thinks she should be saying she reads’ is probably closer to the mark. Really what newspapers she reads should be of no concern or interest to anyone. It’s completely immaterial. Is there a type of newspaper she could answer that she reads that would change your mind on her? I doubt it.
Stating you ‘detest’ her is pretty strong as well. Is it because she doesn’t live up to your standard of what a woman in power should act like?
I detest her because she is hypocritical (hockey mom spends $150k on clothes in one month), a small-time grub (troopergate), indulges in petty corruption (getting the taxpayer to pay for her kids’ travel), is divisive (pro-american parts of america), smears her opponents (palling around with terrorists), lies about her record (earmarks and the bridge to nowhere) and so on. The fat that she is not that curious about the world is only part of it.
Fair enough. All of those attributes are fairly common traits for politicians. I would’ve imagined some of her other policy positions would make her more open to criticism, for instance her position on drilling for oil in national parks. I suppose it’s all personal, I disagree strongly with most of what she stands for, but wouldn’t say I ‘detest’ her. Intellectual snobbery is just the type of nastiness that allows conservatives to ridicule those to the left.
I must say though that I find it surprising the leader of a state could have done as little travelling as she has. I can’t imagine that any of our premiers have not left Australia. I suppose it just once again shows the arrogance of parts of the US; they think the world should come to them
A lot of americans just don’t see any need or point to traveling overseas. Many of them are insular and they think they live in the greatest country so overseas travel just means going to second-rate countries.
I don’t mind that she has positions I don’t agree with because I think a lot of them are probably honestly held like oil-drilling etc
I think she has been a disaster for McCain because she undercuts everything he stands for or used to stand for.
I think people will look back and say selecting Palin was the biggest mistake McCain made
People, after 8 years of Bush, are tired of having people with second-rate intellects in the White House
Ha… is Obama that intellectual though? I can’t really say either way to be honest. Although I suppose it can’t be too difficult being more cerebral than Bush.
It’s interesting to note that Sarah Palin usually gets quite high approval ratings in surveys along with the dissatisfaction. This would seem to indicate she’s highly polarising. The effect of that is hard to guage… is the negative association for her carried mostly among strong Democratic voters or does it extend to undecided voters? Is she likely to motivate more traditional Republican voters to turn up to cast their vote?
I suppose you have a good point in the end though. Choosing Palin has certainly muddled up exactly what message the Republicans are trying to promote with this election.
I think she doesn’t play well with either independents or with clinton democrats, the two groups that McCain was hoping to get more than his fair share of. She does ‘energise’ the base which is important in ‘getting out the conservative vote’ like Bush did in 2000 and 2004. These people like Palin for the same reasons that independents and clinton democrats are turned off by her. McCain really had a tough row to hoe – use Palin to energise the base without letting her piss off the middle. I think Palin became too much of a superstar, drew too much focus and attention she effectively sucked the oxygen away from McCain’s pitch to the middle ground
She’s also had the effect of majorly highlighting McCain’s age. Whilst she appears energetic he seems tired.
If anything though, at least it’s given us the Tina Fey impressions… which I’m ashamed to say made even me smile.
It might be worth noting that intellectual is not the same thing as intelligent. It’s quite possible to be one but not the other.
Nothing wrong with Tina Fey’s impressions. They gave a bit of oxygen back to both sides of this divisive and ugly parody of an election.
“Taking the piss” is a valuable social attribute. A country that cannot laugh at its high and low points is not as healthy as countries which do, whether or not intellect and intellectuals are valued.